Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bridge Tunnel
Constructions ... on 18 February, 1997
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, S. Shaggier Hammed
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted. Substitution allowed.
The admitted facts are that the respondents had entered into an
agreement with the appellant to construct interconnecting
tunnels for Suruliyar Hydroelectric Project as per specification
Schedule-B to the agreement. The initial value of the tender to
be awarded was Rs. 47 lakhs and it was revised to Rs. 69 lakhs
on January 16, 1975. In the course of execution of the contract, a
sum of Rs. 92 lakhs was paid to the respondent. The contract
was to be completed within a period of 24 months but was
completed in 44 months instead.
Resultantly, there had arisen a dispute as to the entitlement to
further amount towards the work done by the respondent.
On a notice issued by the respondent for appointment of an
arbitrator in terms of clause 50 of the contract (arbitrator clause),
there was a delay on the part of the appellant in nomination of
the arbitrator. When the respondent exercised the power, after
expiry of the time prescribed in the notice, appointing a sole
arbitrator, proceedings under Section 33 of the Arbitrator Act,
1940 were initiated by the appellant. One of the objections
raised by the appellant in the proceedings under Section 33 was
that under the terms of the contract the claim sought to be put up
in the notice given by the respondent was not arbitrable.
The question was gone into and the court recorded a finding as
under:
"If the petitioner had come forward to raise dispute and if it is
outside the scope of clause 50, the first respondent itself would
come forward with such a reservation. It is not as if all disputes
would come within the scope of clause 50 and only those that
would come within the ambit of clause 50 alone can be decided
by the Arbitrators. When such is the clear position on this
aspect enabling the petitioner Board to raise a objection
regarding disputes which may not come within the scope of
clause 50 it is not a concession, but a recognition of a right,
which is available not only to the petitioner Board but also the
first respondent in the event of the Board raising any dispute as
against it.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””
Shri V.R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General,
contends that the award is illegal on account of omission on the
part of the Umpire to give the findings and reasons in support
thereof of the arbitrability of the claims. He contends that
arbitrability of claim is a jurisdictional issue. The arbitrator
cannot clothe himself with the power, in a non-speaking award
to award a consolidated sum, without deciding the arbitrability
of the claims set up by the respondents including those which
are not part of the contract.
Shri Poti, learned senior counsel for the respondents has
contended that the award being a non-speaking one in the
absence of specific reference directing the Arbitrators to decide
the arbitrability of some of the items in the claims set up by the
respondent, Umpire was not called upon or obliged to decide the
dispute by a speaking order on arbitrability.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is: whether the Umpire was required to give a
decision supported by reasons on the non-arbitrability of some
of the items in terms of the contract.
In the light of the above facts, the question arises; whether the
arbitrator was not obliged to decide the non-arbitrability of some
of the items claimed by the respondents before/while giving a
non-speaking award and whether a deemed decision could be
given credence.
n is specifically referred to the arbitrator, the arbitrator is
required to decide the question referred to him and decide the
point on the question. Then only he gets the jurisdiction to go
into the merits. In para 12 of the judgment that point was
elaborated holding that :
"The first point extracted hereinbefore would clearly show that
the specific question about the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to
arbitrate upon the dispute set out in Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was
specifically referred to the arbitrator.
In fact this Court had gone into merits while deciding the
question as to whether the arbitrator was justified in making the
award in excess of the jurisdiction with reference to the
arbitration agreement and deciding the dispute on that basis.
In U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. [(1996) 2
SCC 667] a Bench of three judges [to which both of us were
members] had gone into the question whether the arbitrator can
go into the question whether there emerged any concluded
contract and whether he can get exclusive jurisdiction to decide
that question by himself ?
"The clear settled law thus is that the existence or validity of an
arbitration agreement shall be decided by the court alone,
Arbitrators, therefore, have no power of jurisdiction to decide
or adjudicate conclusively by themselves the question since it is
the very foundation on which the arbitrators proceed to
adjudicate the disputes."
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” 1111111
"....The question whether the matters referred were within the
ambit of the clause for reference of "any difference or dispute
which may arise between the partners is for the court to
decide". "....Dispute about the existence or validity of the
contract and as to the existence of facts which render it illegal
must be determined by the court and not by the arbitrator. The
arbitrator cannot by his own finding clothe himself with
jurisdiction. Supposing he finds that the jurisdiction agreement
is valid such a finding cannot bind the parties".
“””””””””””””””” 222222222
“”””””””””””””””1111333333777777777777
It would thus be seen that the arbitrator, while deciding the
admitted dispute, subject matter of adjudication, may decide the
dispute in reference to the agreement. That would be within his
jurisdiction. In such jurisdictional issue, even if an error is
committed that may not be an error apparent on the face of the
record because the arbitrator, the chosen forum, may commit an
error in exercising his jurisdiction. However, if he, by a
speaking award, decides it on a wrong proposition of law, it will
be an error apparent on the face of record and liable to
correction. If the arbitrator decides a dispute which is beyond
the scope of his reference or beyond the subject matter of the
reference or he makes the award disregarding the terms of
reference or the arbitration agreement or terms of the contract, it
would jurisdictional error beyond the scope of reference, he
cannot clothe himself to decide conclusively that dispute as it is
an error of jurisdiction which requires to be ultimately decided
by the court. This Court has pointed out the distinction between
latent and patent error of jurisdiction in Tarapore Co.'s case thus:
"It has to be seen whether the terms of the agreement
permitted entertainment of the claim by necessary implication.
It may be stated that we do not accept the broad contention of
Shri Nariman that whatever is not excluded specifically by the
contract can be subject-matter of claim by a contractor. Such a
proposition will mock at the terms agreed upon. Parties cannot
be allowed to depart from what they had agreed. Of course, if
something flows as a necessary concomitant to what was
agreed upon courts can assume that too as a part of the
contract between the parties."
It would thus be clear that the arbitrator cannot clothe himself
conclusively with the jurisdiction to decide or omit to decide the
arbitrability of a particular item or the claim made by the parties.
When a specific reference has been made to the arbitrator and
the parties raise the dispute of arbitrability, with the leave of the
court/by a direction of the court in a proceedings under Section
33, he is to decide the arbitrability of the dispute and make a
decision of the arbitrability of the dispute and make a decision
while giving reasons in support thereof. The decision of the
arbitrator in granting a particular sum by a non-speaking award,
therefore, hinges upon the arbitrability of a dispute arising under
the contract or upon a particular item claimed thereunder. He is
required to give the decision thereon. The question of decision
by implication does not arise since his jurisdiction to decide to
dispute on merits hinges upon his jurisdiction to decide the
arbitrability of the dispute. In this case, in view of the finding
recorded by the court, which has become final, as referred to
earlier, the arbitrator/umpire was enjoined to decide the
arbitrabilty of the claims set up by the respondent and disputed
by the appellant. Admittedly, the award of the umpire does not
contain any decision on arbitrability of the claims.
In Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique
Erectors [(1989) 1 SCC 532] one of the questions referred was
arbitrability of a particular item. It was by the Court stated thus :
"In the instant case, the arbitrator by virtue of the terms
mentioned in the order of this court had to decide which of the
disputes were arbitrable and which were not. It is true that the
arbitrator has not specifically stated in the award that he had to
decide the question of arbitrability. The arbitrator has rested by
stating that he had heard the parties on the point of arbitrability
of the claim and the counter-claim. He has further stated that
after 'considering all the above aspects' and 'the question of
arbitrability or non-arbitrability' he had made the award on
certain aspects."
“””””””””””””””””””****88888888888
In State of A.P. & Ors. v. R.V. Rayanim & Ors. [(1990) 1 SCC
433], relied on by Shri Poti, the question arose whether the
award of escalation charges in a non-speaking award is vitiated
by any error apparent on the face of the record? Therein the
question of jurisdictional issue had not arisen. On the other
hand, on merits, it was contended that there was an error in that
behalf. In para 5 it was held that " it was then contended, that the
award has purported to grant damages on the basis of escalation
of cost and prices and such escalation was not a matter within
the domain of the bargain between the parties and having taken
that factor into consideration the award was bad." Therefore, the
ratio there is an authority supporting the contention on the need
of an arbitrator to give a reasoned decision on arbitrability of the
contract or claim in dispute.
In this regard, Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, provides thus:
"(3) The arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is
based, unless-
(a) the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given, or
(b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under
Section 30."